Cromwell (1970)

Yesterday I watched Cromwell for the first time. For some strange reason, the film has eluded me, in spite of years of watching TCM. I found it rather disappointing in the beginning, as it seemed to follow the typical, mythical path of showing Cromwell to be the champion of freedom and democracy, overthrowing a brutal tyrant. However, that was just in the beginning, for although Cromwell is the "hero" of the film, by the end all the glory belongs to Charles I. Alec Guiness' masterful performance is enough to make anyone love the hapless monarch who, in spite of his speech problems, exercised such calm and dignity during his miseries that even at his trial it was as if he was holding court. While the departures from actual history are many, I thought Richard Harris' portrayal of Cromwell to be right on the mark as well. In an early scene, his outrage at the sight of the altar adorned in too papist a manner is expressed by violently wrecking the altar with puritanical zeal, a zeal which would later cause him to show no mercy to the king.

What is strange is that in many ways, Charles and Cromwell had a great deal in common. Both were devoted husbands and fathers, both were devout Protestants, although Charles liked candles on the altar and Cromwell did not. Both were convinced of the justice of their causes. However, as Charles' earthly power wanes, his soul grows in greatness and peace, whereas Cromwell, in spite of his stellar success, becomes more bitter, angry and tormented. By the end, he is a much worse tyrant than Charles ever could have been.

I think that DVD Verdict.com makes some pertinent points about the film:

It's not just that Cromwell is historically inaccurate—all fact-based films are inaccurate to some degree; it's par for the course. What's bothersome in this case is that Hughes [the director/writer] twists the facts in support of an agenda. While Cromwell certainly was an effective ruler in many respects, credited with laying the groundwork for Britain's vast expansion and rise to superpower status in the 18th and 19th centuries, Hughes conveniently overlooks important events, such as Cromwell's ruthless pacification of Scotland and Ireland (where the name of Cromwell is hated to this day). In fact, Ireland's bloody history of terrorism can be traced directly back to Cromwell's brutal massacres and anti-Catholic policies.

Make no mistake, the real Cromwell was impossible to fit into neat categories, and even today historians argue over his true nature and the lasting effects of his brief but influential reign. While the film presents him as a champion of the people, Cromwell was hardly a working-class hero. While to a great extent his grab for power was necessitated by a worthless Parliament and a shortage of moral men to fill their places, Cromwell ruled as a dictator, and his reign would not be confused by any modern observer with anything resembling a democracy.

The central theme of Cromwell is that, in order to wrest power from tyrants and deliver it to the people, one must accumulate power—and often the end result is that one despot is merely replaced by another, albeit one with loftier intentions. It's an interesting notion, and one fraught with dramatic possibilities. Yet by obscuring or omitting details of Cromwell's story that might darken the character and give him additional layers of complexity, Hughes not only dilutes this theme, but in presenting us with a military dictator as populist messiah, comes close to creating a fascist manifesto. When you consider that this is a film that is often shown in high school history classes, you have to wonder what message is being communicated about the events themselves and the underlying lessons....

As strong as Harris is in the film, Guinness nearly steals the show with his nuanced, complex performance as the proud, intransigent monarch whose hubris becomes his undoing....Guinness surprises at every turn, giving us a subtle portrait of an honorable and decent family man whose fatal flaws are his absolute inflexibility and unshakable faith in his own regal position.

The main drawback of the film is that Cromwell's ruthless conquest of Ireland is never even mentioned, although Queen Henrietta Maria is shown warning that if Cromwell goes to Ireland he will do terrible things; her words were proved all too true. The execution scene is so powerful that for me it makes restitution for the film's historical flaws. It was utterly tragic in that Charles' death was so unnecessary to his enemies; even Cromwell was made unhappier by it. Not only would England never be the same again, but the world itself was set on a different path that day.


Alec Guiness as Charles I saying farewell to his children before his execution Share